Identity Politics in Afghanistan: Nation-State or State-Nation?

[Akbar]

Even then no conspiracy involved so there is no conspiracy theory...that's just,what people in power do to cultivate society in their inerests

Mir Wais was never a king. His son Mahmood conquered Iran then he was murdered by Ashraf who made himself Shah. This doesn't mean tribal Pashtuns had kings

Plus the Hotak and most Ghilzai clans of Kandahar, except One or two mashar of the Tokhi and Suleman Khel fought Ahmad Sadozai. This idea of Ahmad Sadozai as baba was just perpetuated by Durrani establishment. You should read up about all the Ghilzai revolts. My ancestors are originally Kandahari but we were pushed into Ghazni by Timur, Ahmad's son after the 3rd revolt . Point being is that this "baba" stuff was cooked up by the Durrani rulers and perpetuated by Their Barekzai cousins, the Mohmadzai. If there was this universal embrace of the Durrani monarchy, these revolts would never have happened.

By the way, I'm Hotak myself ...Sahak/Sakzai.

Infighting is a different thing than not having the support of the whole nation.offcourse there could be rebellions . Even in the time of zahir Shah my relatives were seen as threat to the monarchy and were expelled to the north.
I know you and hotak are Turkic according to you so I won't trust such theories either.
Ahmad Shah Abdali not only had support of the people in loy Afghanistan but samarqand ,bukhara and Indian Muslims were under his protection. Even the uigurs of China asked him for protection against the Chinese. He almost went to war for them. You are just trying to marginalize Pashtun honourable figures while cooking some theories, one of them that he wasn't supported by his people. He was supported by all Muslims in the region.
Mahmoud being killed by Ashraf, where have you heard that?
You also say Mirwais was not king but he Definately was the ruler with support of his people. He was also loyal to the Islamic caliphate. Before executing his plan against Gurgin or George he went to Arabia to get a fatwa or permission.

[Akbar]

That's not how it works, I'd think that someone who has such an adament stance on Islam would be wary of making pronouncements like this. Getting triggered over something he said doesn't mean he's "faking it".

What about Shamlwar? here you go Whataboutism - Wikipedia

That isn't an argument.
You know what I'm talking about.
The difference here is shamlawar changed his ways and stayed consistent but this guy hasn't corrected himself and only uses the Muslim label to vent his frustration and stay relevant when discussing world politics.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Infighting is a different thing than not having the support of the whole nation.offcourse there could be rebellions . Even in the time of zahir Shah my relatives were seen as threat to the monarchy and were expelled to the north.
I know you and hotak are Turkic according to you so I won't trust such theories either.
Ahmad Shah Abdali not only had support of the people in lot Afghanistan but samarqand ,bukhara and Indian Muslims were under his protection. Even the uigurs of China asked him for protection against the Chinese. He almost went to war for them. You are just trying to marginalize Pashtun honourable figures while cooking some theories, one of them that he wasn't supported by his people. He was supported by all Muslims in the region.
Mahmoud being killed by Ashraf, where have you heard that?
You also say Mirwais was not king but he Definately was the ruler with support of his people. He was also loyal to the Islamic caliphate. Before executing his plan against Gurgin or George he went to Arabia to get a fatwa or permission.

This wasn't infighting. Infighting happens within tribes and families themselves. Timur's sons, Zaman and Shah Shuja etc. was infighting. THe Ghilzais were revolts, originally it was about who controlled Kandahar, but eventually it was about the Durrani Monarchies themselves. The revolts were happening even until the time of Nadir Shah. Why did the Ghilzai tribes support Habibullah Kalakaani if it was about tribal infighting?

See this shows your own superficial understanding of Pashtuns at least from history. You've taken the Durrani narrative as factual, but it's largely manufactured. Which is why I agree with a lot of what Firdousi says.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I know you and hotak are Turkic according to you so I won't trust such theories either.
.

You don't have to trust me, go read history.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

That isn't an argument.
You know what I'm talking about.
The difference here is shamlawar changed his ways and stayed consistent but this guy hasn't corrected himself and only uses the Muslim label to vent his frustration and stay relevant when discussing world politics.

It's not an argument, it's saying you're committing a logical fallacy called "Whatabouttery" or "Whataboutism" which is irrelevant to what's happening now.

Brother, shirk is the biggest sin,, you're bordering shirk.

[Akbar]

It's not an argument, it's saying you're committing a logical fallacy called "Whatabouttery" or "Whataboutism" which is irrelevant to what's happening now.

Brother, shirk is the biggest sin,, you're bordering shirk.

Again you are not answering .
I take that as a no comment.
Shirk is when you worship other than Allah swt.
Brother, you and I know that I disagree with your mutazilla teaching which I find to be bordering agnostism.


I don't know why you zealously defend firdousi though.
My case is simple
He admitted to being atheist
He was intolerant and racist towards Pashtuns
He marginalised and ridiculed Pashtuns and deemed himself superior
He then suddenly supposedly saw the light
Than he continued racist attacks and proposing disunity among Afghan Muslims.
Than he pretends to be pro Muslim unity when it comes to geo politics.
He knows very well that as an atheist he has no support amon Tajiks themselves.
He should repent and ask Allah swt for forgiveness and stop his foolish behaviour towards Afghans.
He should stop following chirakush people like latef pedram or the munafiq ethnofascists.

I think I know this guy from Afghan forums.

[Akbar]

This wasn't infighting. Infighting happens within tribes and families themselves. Timur's sons, Zaman and Shah Shuja etc. was infighting. THe Ghilzais were revolts, originally it was about who controlled Kandahar, but eventually it was about the Durrani Monarchies themselves. The revolts were happening even until the time of Nadir Shah. Why did the Ghilzai tribes support Habibullah Kalakaani if it was about tribal infighting?

See this shows your own superficial understanding of Pashtuns at least from history. You've taken the Durrani narrative as factual, but it's largely manufactured. Which is why I agree with a lot of what Firdousi says.

This ghilzai vs durrani story is a made up.
It mostly circulates among the anti Pashtun people.
Ahmad Shah masood the late racist northern allian e warlord was also promoting this story. It is used to garner some sort of tribal war among Pashtuns. It never worked and there is no organised ghilzai or durrani.


When I was talking a out infighting I see the Pashtuns as a single unit not some federations as you put it.

[Akbar]

Ok off to bed.......

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

This ghilzai vs durrani story is a made up.
It mostly circulates among the anti Pashtun people.
Ahmad Shah masood the late racist northern allian e warlord was also promoting this story. It is used to garner some sort of tribal war among Pashtuns. It never worked and there is no organised ghilzai or durrani.


When I was talking a out infighting I see the Pashtuns as a single unit not some federations as you put it.

It has too much historical support for it to be "not made up". It may not b e "black and white" certainly some Ghilzai clans did support the Durranis , especially against rival Ghilzai clans (the infighting you mentioned), but the largest body of revolts against the Durranis and later the Barekzais, at least among Pashtuns, has been Ghilzai clans and lesser extent, Khostwal and Paktiawal. Likewise some Panjpayi clans like branches of Alakozai, Alizai etc. supported some Ghilzais in their revolt. But you can't get around historical facts such as the Ghilzai Pashtun support of Kalakani.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Again you are not answering .
I take that as a no comment.
Shirk is when you worship other than Allah swt.
Brother, you and I know that I disagree with your mutazilla teaching which I find to be bordering agnostism.


I don't know why you zealously defend firdousi though.
My case is simple
He admitted to being atheist
He was intolerant and racist towards Pashtuns
He marginalised and ridiculed Pashtuns and deemed himself superior
He then suddenly supposedly saw the light
Than he continued racist attacks and proposing disunity among Afghan Muslims.
Than he pretends to be pro Muslim unity when it comes to geo politics.
He knows very well that as an atheist he has no support amon Tajiks themselves.
He should repent and ask Allah swt for forgiveness and stop his foolish behaviour towards Afghans.
He should stop following chirakush people like latef pedram or the munafiq ethnofascists.

I think I know this guy from Afghan forums.

No shirk is joining partners with Allah, if you think you can read peoples faith and iman on the account of some comment online, then you're pretending you have knowledge on Allah has. What is that but shirk? You're suggesting you're partnering in the attributes of Allah(swt).

This isn't just a Mu'tazilah view but a view by mainstream Ahl Al Sunnah.

What does he need forgiveness for? Saying majority of Afghanistan is technically a region once known up until the last couple hundred years as Khorasan? If anything, I would say this attitude only demonstrates his point about the ethnocentrism associated with the name Afghanistan, and how people are exploiting Islam to blackmail others

I defend him because your portrayal of his position here in this discourse is inaccurate and you seem to be using the "kafir" card as a smokescreen. This really boils down to you not liking something he said and now you're misusing Islam to validate it.

[Akbar]

No shirk is joining partners with Allah, if you think you can read peoples faith and iman on the account of some comment online, then you're pretending you have knowledge on Allah has. What is that but shirk? You're suggesting you're partnering in the attributes of Allah(swt).

This isn't just a Mu'tazilah view but a view by mainstream Ahl Al Sunnah.

What does he need forgiveness for? Saying majority of Afghanistan is technically a region once known up until the last couple hundred years as Khorasan? If anything, I would say this attitude only demonstrates his point about the ethnocentrism associated with the name Afghanistan, and how people are exploiting Islam to blackmail others

I defend him because your portrayal of his position here in this discourse is inaccurate and you seem to be using the "kafir" card as a smokescreen. This really boils down to you not liking something he said and now you're misusing Islam to validate it.

I'm not going to discuss this any further as I know what shirk is and what it is not and no where I used the word kafir.

[Akbar]

It has too much historical support for it to be "not made up". It may not b e "black and white" certainly some Ghilzai clans did support the Durranis , especially against rival Ghilzai clans (the infighting you mentioned), but the largest body of revolts against the Durranis and later the Barekzais, at least among Pashtuns, has been Ghilzai clans and lesser extent, Khostwal and Paktiawal. Likewise some Panjpayi clans like branches of Alakozai, Alizai etc. supported some Ghilzais in their revolt. But you can't get around historical facts such as the Ghilzai Pashtun support of Kalakani.

Kalakani support was because the king was seen as someone who was behaving un Islamic. Nothing to do with ghilzai or durrani.

[Firdousi]

I'm not going to discuss this any further as I know what shirk is and what it is not and no where I used the word kafir.

You know nothing, you ignorant monkey. You dont even know the meaning of "Iranic".

There is this cognitive bias called "Dunning-Kruger Effect" that states this:

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the metacognitive inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1] On the other hand, people of high ability incorrectly assume that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for other people.[2]

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]

To sum it up: you are just a loud-mouth ignorant monkey talking boldly about stuff you are not ignorant of. Please, shut up and let the higher IQ people do the talking.

Manana.

[Akbar]

You know nothing, you ignorant monkey. You dont even know the meaning of "Iranic".

There is this cognitive bias called "Dunning-Kruger Effect" that states this:

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the metacognitive inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1] On the other hand, people of high ability incorrectly assume that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for other people.[2]

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]

To sum it up: you are just a loud-mouth ignorant monkey talking boldly about stuff you are not ignorant of. Please, shut up and let the higher IQ people do the talking.

Manana.

Is that how you talk to your dad?
You are just a khar asani donkey.
Your iranic fascism crap doesn't mean anything to me.
Why do you want Pashtuns to be iranic people anyway? Does that give you satisfaction ,does it feed your inferiority complex.

[Akbar]

If you promote your Iranian propaganda and agenda here than expect response. Also don't lump us with your iranic or Iranian people as we are not iranic or wanna be Iranian like you. I'm sure you will have no resistance among your fellow fascists over in Tajikam.com or latef pedram's Facebook page.